ORDER G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. Heard both sides. 2. The first respondent herein is working as B.T.Assistant in a school run by the Madurai Corporation. She suffered from infection of gum in upper and lower jaw. She happened to be in Nagercoil during the relevant time. She consulted a doctor in Edens Dental & Maxillo Facial Hospital (Pvt) Ltd., Nagercoil. She was advised to undergo surgery immediately. Even though it was a non-network hospital, considering the emergency, she underwent surgery by incurring a sum of Rs.1,22,254/-. She lodged a claim for reimbursement. The matter was taken up by the District Level Empowered Committee on 11.12.2018. However, the said recommendation was not implemented on the ground that the petitioner had taken treatment in a non-network hospital. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.6981 of 2019. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2019 in the following terms:- “5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, passed orders in W.P(MD)No.9761 of 2013 (S.Vijaya Vs. The Additional Director, Tamil Nadu Health Scheme, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Service Campus, New Building 2nd floor, Teynampet, Chennai and 2 others) on 09.12.2016, directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. It would be useful to extract the operative portion of the order, which reads as follows: “9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties and the earlier decisions of this Court reported in 2010(2)L.W.90 in the matter of Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited V. A.Chokkar and others and also yet another judgment of this Court in W.A(MD)No. 859 of 2013 in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu V. Mary Thilagavathi and another. 10. As has been discussed above, the reasons cited by the 1st respondent in the impugned order are either non-est or cannot be considered as valid reasons for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 10. As has been discussed above, the reasons cited by the 1st respondent in the impugned order are either non-est or cannot be considered as valid reasons for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration and while doing reconsideration, the first respondent without giving the same reasons, has to explore the possibility of granting the reimbursement to the petitioner either under the scheme or on the basis of the agreement entered into between the Government and the third respondent, as admittedly, the petitioner has undertaken the treatment of a major surgery, for which, the medical reimbursement cannot be refused or rejected by the respondents.” 6. Following the same, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 09.02.2019 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the fourth respondent for consideration afresh and while doing so, the fourth respondent has to explore the possibility of granting the reimbursement to the petitioner under the scheme, as admittedly, the petitioner has undertaken the treatment of dental surgery for which, the medical reimbursement cannot be refused or rejected by the respondents. The needful shall be done by the fourth respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The District Level Empowered Committee was once again constituted and it took up the case of the writ petitioner on 27.09.2019. The District Level Empowered Committee positively recommended the case of the petitioner and it directed that the petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement cannot be refused or rejected. Since this proceeding remained unimplemented, she filed W.P.(MD).No.25028 of 2019. The writ petition was disposed of on 28.11.2019 in the following terms:- “8. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders based on the recommendation of the District Collector and disburse the eligible amount to the petitioner, as per the Tamil Nadu Medical Attendance Rules, taking into consideration, the Division Bench judgment of this Court, cited supra, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.” 3. Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.” 3. The stand of the learned Special Government Pleader is that the Government cannot be saddled with financial liability to make reimbursement and that it is the insurance company that has to pay. This stand of the Special Government Pleader is vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since the nature of ailment does not appear to be a case of emergency, and the petitioner took treatment in a non- network hospital, the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to make the payment. 4. We are not swayed by the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 18144 of 2021 ( A. Jabamalai Mary v The State of Tamil Nadu ) held as follows: “4. It is made clear that the District Level Empowered Committee is the Competent Committee to decide the issues regarding the genunity of the claim. Further, the Representative of the Insurance Company is also the Official member of the District Level Empowered Committee, as per the Policy. While so, if at all any objection, the Insurance Company has to raise such objection before the Committee itself. Once the Committee recommended the case as genuine, the Insurance Company cannot turn around and decline settlement of the medical reimbursement claim and take an independent decision overlooking the decision taken by the District Level Empowered Committee. The policy does not contemplate or provide any such power to the Insurance Company, in view of the fact that the Authorised Representative is the Official member of the Committee. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot take a decision contrary to the decision taken by the District Level Empowered Committee”. 5. The facts of the present case are no different. The copy of the recommendation made by the District Level Empowered Committee has been enclosed at Page No.76 of the typed set of papers. It is seen therefrom that the nodal officer of the United India Insurance Company, Madurai was also a party to the committee meeting. If the Insurance Company was aggrieved by the positive recommendation made by the committee in favour of the writ petitioner, the Insurance Company ought to have filed an appeal before the State Level Empowered Committee. Such an appeal was not filed. If the Insurance Company was aggrieved by the positive recommendation made by the committee in favour of the writ petitioner, the Insurance Company ought to have filed an appeal before the State Level Empowered Committee. Such an appeal was not filed. We are therefore of the view that the Insurance Company is squarely bound by the aforesaid recommendation made on 25.09.2019. The decisions rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in W.P. (MD) No. 25304 of 2018 and W.P. (MD)No. 25304 of 2018 also strengthen the view taken by us. 6. Even while we uphold the stand of the Government in this writ appeal, we direct the second respondent herein to forthwith implement the recommendation made by the committee. The amount of Rs.1,22,254/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the Insurance Company fails to make the said payment within the aforesaid time limit, it will have to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date when the cause of action arose. The order of the learned single Judge is accordingly modified. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.